Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 439: Line 439:
* '''Delete''' This is pointless. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' This is pointless. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
* '''Upmerge''' to parents per nom. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
* '''Upmerge''' to parents per nom. <span style="color:blue">Star</span><span style="color:orange">cheers</span><span style="color:green">peaks</span><span style="color:red">news</span>lost<span style="color:blue">wars</span><sup>[[User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars|Talk to me]]</sup> 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
*'''Upmerge''' to eliminate an unnecessary layer. This should probably also be done to the Scottish and Northern Irish siblings (2 items each). [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 18:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)


==== Category:People by gender ====
==== Category:People by gender ====

Revision as of 18:56, 25 December 2023

< December 19
December 21 >

December 20

Category:Kosovo people

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, newly created. Place Clichy (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Twins from ancient Rome

Nominator's rationale: Matches categories in Category:Twins by nationality and sibling categories in Category:Ancient Romans. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose name change referring to 'Ancient Roman twins', just make them sound like elderly twins who live in Rome. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, I personally agree with the name change (C2C with Category:Twins by nationality) but I think it should go to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, @Omnis Scientia would you like to do the honors? @Randy Kryn, all the ancient roman categories are named like this. Mason (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. (And thanks to the nom for moving this to full) Mason (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Randy Kryn Mason (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the ping. Support per being informed that all of the ancient Roman categories are styled like this. But "Ancient Roman twins" could be my Uncle Mortie and Aunt Rose (God bless their souls, under their real names, real birth order, and real nationalities, but you get the idea). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music videos showing Sweden

Nominator's rationale: These are minor subsets of Category:Music videos shot in Sweden/Stockholm, and there is no category scheme based on "recognisable features" shown in videos. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All articles are already in the two "shot in" categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of China

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category. Theoretically, there is room people with a defining link to a country but for whom we don't have any information or certainty about their citizenship of that country. However, it has proved not practically feasible to keep distinct category trees in the long run. Specifically, for a place with a history as long as China, there are times when going back in history where the notion of nationals vs. non-nationals just does not make sense. That's why individual people are at Category:People by nationality and not at Category:People by country. Place Clichy (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, in practice "Chinese people" and "people in China" are indistinguishable, we cannot check people's passports. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manual merge and redirect, following categorisation of siblings. E.g. Expatriates in China should not go into the target; it is already correctly in Demographics of China. The merge cannot be processed by bot as it is merger to a sub-cat. Redirection is desirable because there are many interwiki links. – Fayenatic London 09:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we at some point discuss the correct parenting of categories for expatriates, immigrants, diasporas etc.? Imho expatriates and diaspora categories should not be placed in Demographics of... categories but in Society of... as the people in these categories are not statistics and population science. Place Clichy (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from Dutch Guiana to the United States

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge, is a small intersection that doesn't help navigation. This nom is in the same spirit as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7#Emigrants_from_former_countries Mason (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century executions by the District of Columbia

Nominator's rationale: Only three people in this entire tree, too small for difussion by century Mason (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of women government ministers by portfolio

Nominator's rationale: Every content uses "female" not "women" —Panamitsu (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of women government ministers by country

Nominator's rationale: Every content uses "female", not "women". —Panamitsu (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with schizoid personality disorder

Nominator's rationale: In theory, this category should be upmerged for now, but it is not defining for the only character in here. Mason (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tyla (South African singer)

Nominator's rationale: A total of three related articles (one album and two songs) doesn't seem to be enough to justify an eponymous category yet. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from the Colony of Natal to the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge, these categories are a small intersection that doesn't help navigation. (Not sure if we should merge to South African emigrants to the FOO or Immigrants to FOO). This nom is in the same spirit as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7#Emigrants_from_former_countries Mason (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, with regret, because South African is anachronistic. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Emigrants from Dutch Ceylon to France

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge, these categories are a small intersection that doesn't help navigation. This nom is in the same spirit as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_May_7#Emigrants_from_former_countries Mason (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:War criminals

Nominator's rationale: I apologize for the lengthy explanation, but I noticed that another editor placed the article for David Funchess in Category:War criminals. The justification for this decision is understandable, as during his time on death row for separate crimes, Funchess confessed to intentionally killing unarmed civilians, including children, during the Vietnam War. However, despite his confessions, he was never indicted, tried, or convicted of war crimes, or any crimes related to his service in Vietnam.
Upon clicking on the category and investigating, I saw that this category was deleted once in 2007, with some justification for its deletion being that there is already a category for Category:People convicted of war crimes (which would theoretically encapsulate war criminals better than this category, which I believe could easily be misapplied). There is also a category for Category:People indicted for war crimes. It just seems that those categories are better at getting the point across than this one, without being nearly as subjective and inconsistent in application. I agree with the previous consensus from 2007. Another user re-added this category in 2019, citing "faulty reasonsing IMO," but I do not think the consensus reached in 2007 was wrong.
(I guess my complaints here might also cover Category:Female war criminals for the same reasons.) Afddiary (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate subcategory for Category:Criminals by crime. There are categories for other un-convicted criminals, so I don't see any reason to single out "war criminals". Other categories are better at getting the point across, but Category:War criminals is appropriate for, say, the identified perpetrators of a massacre who were never tried. Lightiggy (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case we already have a category for unconvicted war criminals, namely Category:People indicted for war crimes. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but what about ones who were not tried? What about men like self-confessed Paul Aussaresses and Jacques Massu, who have confessed and been conclusively proven to be war criminals, but were never tried for them (Aussaresses was instead prosecuted for making excuses for torturing detainees in Algeria). Lightiggy (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightiggy, my issue with the category as it is, though, is that it is so unevenly applied.
I looked at some pages for other war criminals, particularly those involved in the Nazi regime and the Rwandan genocide, and several of them were convicted of war crimes but did not have any war crime-related categories on their pages, even if their article leads or bodies said they WERE convicted of war crimes.
Others were convicted of crimes against humanity, which are similar but legally distinct from war crimes - but their pages DID have the "War criminals" category.
Then you have many people who are largely culturally and popularly considered war criminals, such as Henry Kissinger (see the "Domestic reactions" section of his page, as well as his Talk Page discussion pointing out 8 mainstream news sites that entertain the idea of him being a war criminal) - yet he was never convicted of a war crime and does not have any war criminal categories. Regardless of my personal opinion on the matter being that he was/is a war criminal, it wouldn't feel appropriate for me to apply that category to his page because it's subjective, and Wikipedia strives not to be subjective. There is not a consensus on whether or not he was/is a war criminal.
Any debate over the appropriateness of applying that category would, in my opinion, be solved by resorting to using categories that are more difficult to subjectively misapply or abuse - like "People indicted for war crimes" or "People convicted of war crimes." Meanwhile, the category I proposed for deletion feels like it could be (and has been) applied so unevenly and subjectively - doubly so because the decision to remove it was due to a consensus, and the decision to bring it back was due to one single editor's choice 12 years later, with no discussion or consensus. Afddiary (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also wanted to add this point - as someone who edits a lot of articles for people convicted of serious crimes, I've also noticed a trend towards removing categories that brand people with specific titles for the crimes they have committed, and instead focusing on what they have been convicted of committing. I actually view this as a positive change because it shifts away from applying categories unevenly and subjectively, or in a way that doesn't match the definitions of controversial, serious, or accusatory words as they should be applied on Wikipedia. (For example, I've noticed a lot of articles no longer using categories like Category:American murderers, and instead opting for any of the many categories under the umbrella Category:People convicted of murder - and I actually agree with this because I have seen categories similar to the former being misapplied in cases where the words "killing," "manslaughter," or "death" might be more appropriate than "murder". I wasn't one of the people spearheading that change, but I've watched it progress, and I see it largely as a positive. I think it would be a positive to apply this same logic to "War criminals" vs. "People convicted of war crimes.") Afddiary (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American murderers is still used when a confirmed murderer never stood trial. To me, the same logic applies to the war criminals category. Lightiggy (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dimadick. AHI-3000 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would generally support deletion for the reasons expressed by the nom. The issue is that there is a disjoint between the popular understanding and legal definition of war crimes. Articles about "War crimes in X conflict" or "by X state" actually also contain content about non-tried war crimes, not to mention crimes against humanity and genocide, because many people would assume that any type of atrocity is a "war crime". (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a large part of my problem with the category. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a disjoint between the popular understanding and legal definition of war crimes, and having a category like Category:War criminals just seems like it contributes to that problem when people apply it so subjectively.
    I just ran into the article for Claus Schilling, where his short description and infobox state that he was a war criminal convicted of war crimes, but his categories do not reflect that – and neither does the rest of the text in the body of his article.
    There are dozens (if not hundreds) of similar articles I've encountered on Wikipedia, and I don't think attempting to apply the category to all of them would solve the problem.
    I also just think that on principle, it should not be acceptable for a consensus to be made on the deletion of a category after plenty of discussion, while one individual editor can make a decision 12 years later that all of them were wrong and the category should be re-added. Afddiary (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I especially agree with Afddiary's comment right above mine. "I also just think that on principle, it should not be acceptable for a consensus to be made on the deletion of a category after plenty of discussion, while one individual editor can make a decision 12 years later that all of them were wrong and the category should be re-added."
I also worry that @Lightiggy's isn't really listening/engaging with the concerns being raised as they're making child categories while this nomination is onging. (Category:Perpetrators of American Civil War prisoner of war massacres was made yesterday) Mason (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Constables

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, a mix of a court position, a military position and a law enforcement position. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths in Somerset County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Death by location in not defining, and we don't have deaths by county Mason (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case, all the deaths are related to 9/11, which are already connected to the county. So deletion might be better.Mason (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather purge John du Pont and Nicholas (Smisko), deaths categories are usefully diffused by type of death, not by location. Location of death either overlaps with where people live, or is an entirely random and trivial location. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and purge per Marcocapelle Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with narcissistic personality disorder

Nominator's rationale: This is an inappropriate categorization. Yes, categorizing by disability WP:DISABILITYCAT can be appropriate when that disability is a defining characteristic. But that particular condition NPD is predominantly given as a label during criminal investigation. So it cannot define the person's in that it is only a judicial tool in the context of their trial. Also it is only defined as a set of (really negative) personality traits, yet it is almost always an offense of living person biography to just say that person A has negative personality trait B, C, D, E, F. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about other Category:People with personality disorders subcategories, such as Category:People with antisocial personality disorder? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination applies much less to Borderline personality disorder (more studied as a mental disorder and not a personality trait, diagnosed outside of jail settings, and even having an advocacy movement). That's why I find a blanket nomination is inappropriate. बिनोद थारू (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I expected to iVote keep ... until I clicked on the articles. What defines these articles is criminal indictment/prosecution, not these after the fact claims during the criminal cases. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per WP:DISABILITYCAT. As I pointed out on a recent discussion, psychological disabilities are still disabilities. Your assumption that having a personality disorder diagnosis is an inherently negative thing is reflects the stigma surrounding personality disorders. I would support purging the articles of people who their personality disorder is not a defining feature (and only came up when there was a criminal trial), which seems to be a genuine issue. Regardless, this condition is in the DSM and is not the same as the trait of narcissism. However, I do think that we can delete both Category:People with passive-aggressive personality disorder‎ and Category:People with sadistic personality disorder as neither of those categories reflect an actual diagnosis (neither were officially included as diagnoses, but only as proposed disorders that might be added). Mason (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Disabilities are a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for these same reasons AHI-3000 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for opposers if the category is kept, who will populate it? I checked several articles and none seemed defining, while some failed verification. Are there any examples where it is a defining feature? Unless there are several individuals who are defined by this trait, I will support deletion. (t · c) buidhe 06:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So I haven't looked for examples yet, but at the very least, I think purging is the correct approach here rather than deletion outright. It may very well end with the category being empty, but in that case if in the future, someone does find the WP:DISABILITYCAT. criteria, the category can be remade. Mason (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really a fan of categories where the majority of the items that would seem to be included just looking at the title do not actually belong in the category. Very few editors understand categorization rules and most categories that are set up like this end up filled with non-defining entries, that become a cleanup headache. I support OCAWARD's handling of this situation. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anthropomorphic animals by type

Nominator's rationale: Splitting animals by vertebrate/invertebrate seems to be WP:NARROWCAT. Pointless new intersection that serves no useful purpose, just place them in Category:Fictional animals by type instead. I should also note that real humans are technically "anthropomorphic vertebrates". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Category:Anthropomorphic animals should be placed directly in Category:Fictional animals by type. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think it's fine the way it is, no need to overwhelm Category:Anthropomorphic animals which is already filled with 9 subcategories. Instead I think Category:Anthropomorphic animal characters should be merged into Category:Anthropomorphic animals, I think that's even less necessary of a category. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That many subcategories is not going to "overwhelm" anything. Wikipedia servers are not running on hamster wheels, they can handle categorizes with dozens of subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about simply browsing these pages. There's no pressing need to move 10 categories into another category right now. AHI-3000 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate proposal:
My rationale: Just check out Category:Anthropomorphic animals. I think I've simplified navigation a bit; it's now a subcategory of Category:Fictional animals by type, while I've removed Category:Anthropomorphic animals by type as an unnecessary extra layer. But please don't get rid of Category:Anthropomorphic invertebrates or Category:Anthropomorphic vertebrates, I think keeping them at the top of Category:Anthropomorphic animals will still provide quick and easy navigation, remove them and you fill up Category:Anthropomorphic animals with 10 additional subcategories without any sense of order or reason. AHI-3000 (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original nomination, this tree is not about biology, it is about fiction. Following scientific taxonomy unnecessary complicates the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Science fantasy characters

Nominator's rationale: "Science fantasy" is an ill-defined genre, even scholars admit it. It veers into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT to place characters here and the current category members bear that out. (Even George Lucas said that Star Wars should be considered fantasy). There is nothing wrong with the original scheme of placing characters in both science fiction and fantasy if they qualify. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Plenty of works of fiction can be described as science fantasy, and I'm sure they can be verified by reliable sources too. Also see Category:Science fantasy franchises and Category:Science fantasy by medium. Characters from any such science fantasy media can be described as science fantasy characters. It's more accurate to call them such if they don't fit neatly into fantasy or sci-fi character categories. AHI-3000 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You created those categories too. The fact is that you apparently believe science fantasy is a set genre when it is demonstrably anything but. The entry in the Science Fiction encyclopedia states that "In the Terminology of sf readers, and more especially publishers, this term has never been clearly defined" and that "Twenty-first century texts are rarely described as Science Fantasy". The more that I think about it, Category:Science fantasy and everything that's a subcategory of it should probably be deleted for this reason, but I'll wait until this gets deleted or not before attempting that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make up the concept of the science fantasy genre, and I only gathered preexisting subcategories together. Category:American animated science fantasy television series has more than a few examples of science fantasy works. I don't know if others will disagree with science fantasy being a distinct subgenre that is covered by external sources. AHI-3000 (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that that category was made by a user who was since indefinitely blocked for disruption. My argument isnt that it doesn't exist as a genre or that the science fantasy page ought to be deleted, just that categorizing things as it is too messy. Even reliable sources disagree. Here is one example where the video game Anthem is called science fantasy. Except that this equally reliable source calls it a "sci-fi adventure". It's like this across the board. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there is a whole tree of Category:Science fantasy, it may be helpful to have a broader discussion at a WikiProject talk page to see if the entire tree ought to be deleted or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AHI-3000's explanation. A relatively well-defined subgenre. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Eponyms in psychology

Convert Category:Eponyms in psychology to article Eponyms in psychology
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that being an eponym is a defining feature. It might make an interesting list, but I don't think it warrants a category Mason (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Eponyms. There is currently only one article in the category so there isn't much to listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be expanded, and I will attempt to do so now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that all the pages you included count. Here's the description from the parent category. "An eponym is a person, place, or thing after whom or after which something is named, or believed to be named. Since many medical conditions, sports moves, bridge and chess techniques, buildings, prizes, and other things have been named after people, these are not included in this category, as categorization on the basis of having been named for a person is considered to be overcategorization based on trivial aspects of the article. This category is for the process or phenomenon of naming things after people. Feel free to add other items to the appropriate lists under the category Category:Lists of eponyms." Mason (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert Belongs in a list. I have broader WP:SHAREDNAME concerns about other parts of this category tree as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too trivial for a category. I am not sure about a list either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of colonial Florida

Nominator's rationale: Contains one page and three categories which are already present in the other two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added 5 more articles. If the category is kept, the subcategories should be removed from the proposed target, per WP:SUBCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Smasongarrison and @Fayenatic london, pinging for your opinion on this one. It is quite complicted. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there were also French colonies in Florida (French Florida), so I'm not sure the target is right. Place Clichy (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, people of colonial Florida is a tricky one to categorize because it did change hands a few times. I get why Spanish Florida has its own category; Spain had the longest hold on the place before the U.S. got it. Because "pre-statehood" and "colonial" have the same subcategories and (before the recent addition) only one page, I think the merge "pre-statehood" works best for French and British colonial people of Florida. Either that or move the French colonists to the "colonial" category.
    @Marcocapelle, what do you think? Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not move French people to the colonial subcat because there was no French colony in Florida. They are sort of pre-colonial, and therefore part of pre-statehood. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle. That's fair enough. I was just reading on this because (here) because I wasn't aware the French got there before the Spanish. You're right, it was never officially a colony of the French like it was for the British and the Spanish. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles for Jean Ribault, René Goulaine de Laudonnière, Dominique de Gourgues, Jacques Le Moyne, Saturiwa are very much defined in relation to colonial Florida in introduction, although the 1560s French attempts were ultimately "unsuccessful". There is also West Florida, an area which changed hands (and borders) several times between the French, the Spanish, the British and the Americans between the 1760s and the 1820s, and I note that Category:Governors of West Florida (mostly British governors) is a child of Category:People of colonial Florida, so the latter is not exclusively Spanish. Florida is the earliest place settled by Europeans in Northern America and has a rich colonial and pre-statehood history. It may be interesting to have categories for colonial Florida with focus on the geographical area rather than the European power. In my understanding pre-statehood refers to the period where these areas where part of the U.S. as territories but not yet a state (so 1821 to 1845 in the case of the present-day State of Florida, and 1810 to 1812, 1817 or 1819 for the parts of West Florida that are now in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama). Place Clichy (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping that this category would magically fix itself, because I agree that this one is hard. I don't have a good solution, but I'm not as familiar with the history of colonial florida. Mason (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of colonial West Virginia

Nominator's rationale: West Virginia was never a colony but a part of the Colony of Virginia Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle per nom, but dual merge also to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. Besides I guess it would be helpful for clarification to nominate the target to Category:People from the Colony of Virginia, and maybe do that for the other colonies too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I suppose you mean the name of the category per the recent discussion in speedy rename. I think it was decided that it would be "People from colonial *state name*" for all. Should I nominate those for renaming?
    I agree, the dual merge is a better idea as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps start nominating Virginia and Massachusetts first because these appear to be the most ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging; no strong opinion on renaming, as I didn't participate in or know of the other discussions. Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia in colonial times, people who lived within its boundaries is a valid a categorization—and it does not equate to "pre-statehood", which covers an entirely different scope. Only a small number of persons occupied what is now West Virginia prior to 1776–1783, and those people tend to be celebrated in West Virginia history. This is very different from the group that began settling the country en masse around 1795, and continuing to statehood in 1863. But it's also very different from people living in colonial Virginia east of the mountains—a large number, quite relevant to the history of modern Virginia, but not so much to West Virginia. They would swamp the entries for West Virginia, which would be difficult to identify as a group, just as they would if merged into a category containing say, Civil War generals who weren't born until half a century after the Revolution. P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Merge to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia to address P Aculeius feedback above to maintain categorization of the geographic area. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the exact opposite of what I said—why would we put the pioneers of 1750–1776 in the same category with Civil War general Albert Gallatin Jenkins? That doesn't make any sense! P Aculeius (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Rationale is updated; didn't mean to misrepresent your perspective which I must have read too quickly. Sorry about that. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that, but I still don't think lumping all West Virginians prior to 1863 is a good idea, when currently we have a category for only the early ones, matching the time period of other American colonists by state or future state. It'll be much harder to spot them in the midst of a much broader category. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • But they will still be in Category:Virginia colonial people where they properly belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And completely swamped and lost amid people who bear absolutely no relation to the subject of this article. There are eighteen times as many individuals listed under Virginia—451 compared with 24—along with nine subcategories. Readers will have absolutely no hope of finding colonial-era pioneers of West Virginia if they're mixed in with all of the other Virginians. There might conceivably be value in having the West Virginia pioneers of colonial times added to the list of Virginians, but eliminating their own category creates an insuperable hurdle to those studying West Virginia history. This proposal is tantamount to saying that, "prior to 1863, West Virginia history is only valid as a subtopic of Virginia history". Even though West Virginia was part of Virginia until 1863, the region had its own history stretching back more than a century prior to statehood, and that's just as valid and encyclopedic a topic. There's no good reason for relegating it to the status of a subtopic of some other place. P Aculeius (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @P Aculeius, they were Virginians during the colonial times. West Virginia was not even a thought until during the American Civil War. They would never have thought of themselves as such. Additionally, as everyone has been explaining to you, pre-statehood West Virginia keeps them seperate just like Category:People of pre-statehood Kentucky. Additionally, there is Category:West Virginia pioneers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You probably wouldn't say that if you had studied West Virginia history—there were several proposals for a separate state over several decades, some of them before 1800! And it certainly wasn't the Civil War that made people in the west consider themselves separate from eastern Virginia. West Virginia had little of the industrialization, manufacture, trade, or large-scale agriculture that made Virginia prosperous—and it still doesn't! Was it the best or wisest course? That's a matter of opinion. But it happened, and the people who settled in what is now West Virginia before the Revolution are a vital part of West Virginia history, though barely a footnote in Virginia history.
      Unlike "colonial", which specifically refers to the period up to the Revolution, "pioneers" doesn't refer to a specific time period, and could include people from many decades after the Revolution. There is absolutely no advantage to anyone in lumping these categories together—this isn't about me not understanding what other people are saying. It's about you refusing to acknowledge the validity of a category of considerable importance to West Virginia history, by making the excuse "they were all Virginians before 1863".
      The comparison to Kentucky is unhelpful: Kentucky became a state in 1792, less than ten years after the end of the Revolution, so there's not a huge difference between Kentuckians of the colonial era and pre-statehood Kentuckians. In West Virginia, that period spans eighty years—nearly three generations—and a considerable chunk of the nation's history. But I also point out that there are only three individuals in the "pre-statehood Kentucky" category, compared with 24 individuals under colonial-era West Virginia.
      So I ask again, what advantage does anybody gain from not being able to find a list of colonial-era people from what is now West Virginia, as opposed to having to hunt page by page through over 450 Virginians for the handful who settled in what is now West Virginia? If you're going to eliminate a category that has a useful purpose, there ought to be a really good reason for it—"West Virginia wasn't a state until 1863!" seems like a pretty weak rationale for doing so! P Aculeius (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the majority opinion is Dual merge with Category:Virginia colonial people and Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia. @Smasongarrison, pinging for your view since you took part in a previous discussion about this. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a manual duel merging; I would prefer the WV category to be "from" instead of "of" People of pre-statehood West Virginia. I'm fairly familiar with the pre-statehood history of west Virginia; one of my ancestors (Frederick Ice) settled the area in the 18th century (which would put him in the Category:West Virginia pioneers). If we do a manual merge to Category:People of pre-statehood West Virginia, @P Aculeius, the information isn't lost. Mason (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, agreed about the name change regarding the categories of Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states by state. Will do it after this Cfd (and a few related ones) close before I do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's lost in a sea of people who lived up to 1863—more than 80 years after the Revolution. The category as it stands now is limited to people from 1783 or earlier, but after merging nearly everyone in the category would be after that. Good luck searching for the colonial-era ones in that group! P Aculeius (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "The category as it stands now is limited to people from 1783 or earlier, but after merging nearly everyone in the category would be after that"? The category would still be limited to pre 1783 people. You can always find people who are in both categories using the search function. incategory:"People of pre-statehood West Virginia" incategory:"Virginia colonial people" [1] Mason (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
West Virginia became a state in 1863, not 1783. If you merge "people of colonial West Virginia" with "people of pre-statehood West Virginia", the category will include not just people from before the Revolutionary War, but everyone up to the Civil War. "People of colonial West Virginia" will cease to be a category, and will be mixed in with other people who lived decades afterward and had nothing to do with those of the colonial period. If you merge it with "people of colonial Virginia", then the 24 people currently listed will be mixed in with 451 entries in a larger category, and essentially disappear.
In the first instance, readers will not be able to hone in on people associated with what is now West Virginia and exclude those who lived after the colonial period; in the second they will not be able to locate colonists who lived in what is now West Virginia due to being dispersed throughout a much larger category. The purpose of categorization is to make similar or related topics easier to find, not harder; merging the category into either proposed target—or both of them—offers no benefit to readers. It seems to constitute nothing more than a value judgment that the topic is not worthy of inclusion, or that there is no purpose in researching people who were in or associated with what is now West Virginia prior to the Revolution. I do not understand that logic. P Aculeius (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, the scope would be for a larger timespan. (I'm fine with that because West Virginia wasn't defined in the colonial period, but P Aculeius' point is accurate.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Latin-language writers

Nominator's rationale: delete, the subcategories are already connected to each other in Category:Writers in Latin by century. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My question is: how does that differentiate this category from its sister categories as a subcategory of "Writers in Latin by period": "Old Latin-language writers", "Classical Latin-language writers", "Late Antique Latin-language writers", "Medieval Latin-language writers", and "Renaissance Latin-language writers?" Most of these also contain subcategories of writers by century; the only difference I can see is that none of the 60 persons in "Modern's" three subcategories are listed individually (there's probably some overlap, but still plenty of individuals). And I'm not sure why that is, but is it really distinguishing from "Classical Latin-language writers", which has over a hundred entries in subcategories, and only two individual entries (plus a list)? Or are all of these categories next on the chopping block? They seem like logical divisions for anyone researching the history of Latin-language writing. So I fail to see the advantage to anyone of deleting this category, besides saving Wikipedia 419 bytes (less than half of 1 Kb) of memory. P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that ancient and medieval often contain people for whom it is not clear in which century they lived. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But in many cases they are—and writers by century are still grouped as subcategories of writers by period. If the only reason for deleting the latest category in a series of categories is that we know which century each person should be sorted into (and bearing in mind that a large number of individuals belong to more than one century, so there's no bright-line rule to be extracted from that), then the category should be kept. I don't believe that the sole justification for having these categories is that there are a few persons whose exact century isn't known. P Aculeius (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There is some novelty in Latin-Language writers from the modern era given that Latin is a very dead language. Mason (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to contrast with medieval. For some reason neither seems to cover 16th and 17th centuries, though there were books in the language in that period, such as Newton's Principia. The alternative would be to abolish both by merging into a by century category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional United States government personnel

Nominator's rationale: Closest to real-world counterpart is Category:American civil servants; see also below. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. Would "civil servants" be inclusive of Category:Fictional American military personnel? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think any renaming is necessary. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional government employees

Nominator's rationale: Closest to real-world counterpart is Category:Civil servants. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. Would "civil servants" be inclusive of Category:Fictional military personnel? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think any renaming is necessary. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uzbek national dances

Nominator's rationale: One-entry category that will only isolate the article. Note that the article is also categorized in Category:Asian folk dances. Pichpich (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American television producers

Nominator's rationale: non-defining intersection per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Would add Category:African-American television producers as well because its the only other category by ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I think that this category should be broadened to just Category:Jewish television producers. (Effectively, my rule of thumb for nominating was whether there was a parent Jewish OCCUPATION category that wasn't diffused by nationality.) Mason (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American film directors

Nominator's rationale: non-defining intersection per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom: would add other categories in Category:American film directors by ethnic or national origin and Category:American LGBT film directors. I would say keep and create a subcategory in Category:Jewish film people per @Mason's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I think that this category should be broadened to just Category:Jewish film directors. (Effectively, my rule of thumb for nominating was whether there was a parent Jewish OCCUPATION category that wasn't diffused by nationality.) Mason (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American film producers

Nominator's rationale: non-defining intersection per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Would add Category:African-American film producers as well because its the only other category by ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I think that this category should be broadened to just Category:Jewish film producers. (Effectively, my rule of thumb for nominating was whether there was a parent Jewish OCCUPATION category that wasn't diffused by nationality.) Mason (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom but also merge to Category:Jewish film people. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters from the 6th millennium

Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, all on Doctor Who characters. Last nomination was withdrawn because DW is not exclusively set in the 6th millennium. Also, we don't have an established category by millennium or century, or for characters from the future. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to find a 4th entry! Probably withdraw now. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have completed extending Category:Fictional characters by century to the future. How about Category:Fictional characters from the future to include all the future centuries and other characters from works set in the future? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American chefs

Nominator's rationale: non-defining intersection per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. Would add Category:American chefs of Asian descent, Category:African-American chefs, Category:Puerto Rican chefs and Category:Native American chefs to this as well. As with Category:American inventors, I don't see why this needs to be divided by ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I think that this category should be broadened to just Category:Jewish chefs. (Effectively, my rule of thumb for nominating was whether there was a parent Jewish OCCUPATION category that wasn't diffused by nationality.) Mason (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American lawyers

Nominator's rationale: non-defining intersection per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are other similar categories by ethnicity and it helps in diffusion. Actually, rather torn by this. Unlike chefs and inventors, I can see why lawyers are split by ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, Jewish Americans are a minority like others categorized in Category:American lawyers by ethnic or national origin, and are notable enough to have their own list article (in Category:Lists of American jurists). Additionally, there are "American lawyers with disabilities" and "American LGBT lawyers" which isn't the case with the other two nominations. So I wouldn't call the category non-defining in this particular case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was conflicted, @Omnis Scientia, which is why I didn't bundle all the categories together. Effectively, my rule of thumb for nominating was whether their was a parent Jewish OCCUPATION category that wasn't diffused by nationality. If kept, I think that this category should be broadened to just Jewish lawyers. Mason (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, that makes sense. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also sorry to spam the same comment at you. I wanted to make sure that the reasoning was clear if the nominations get separated when/if they're relisted. Mason (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, no worries! Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, I would say keep this particular one. I created a Category:Jewish lawyers (added to Category:Lawyers by ethnicity) and am populating it.
    I don't think of it as non-defining and it has helped significantly in diffusing Category:American Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, the thing with these Cfd (and I've seen a few related to Jewish people in general where most decide they are NOT defining) is that we are deciding whether or not Jewish Americans are defining. I would say they very much are. And in case of Jewish Americans, unlike Jewish Britons for example, there are significant numbers to warrant categories like this one IF there is a precedence of categorization by ethnicities in an occupation which, in this case, there is (Category:American lawyers by ethnic or national origin). Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment entirely misses the intersection part in WP:EGRS/I. Of course American Jewish/Jewish American identity is defining for many people, and the category to reflect that is Category:American Jews. Place Clichy (talk) 08:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, again, you can apply this argument to any other ethnic group in the States, and there are other categories of Category:American lawyers which could be against WP:EGRS.
    In the event this category is NOT kept, it should be merged with Category:Jewish lawyers as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge (rather than splitting, and maybe that was the original intent). Jewish American lawyers practice the same law as other lawyers. While there are a number of American lawyers who are Jewish, and the Jewish American lawyer may be a racist cliché in itself, I don't believe that someone should be put in such a category if their professional practice does not deal with Jewish topics in a defining fashion. I believe that for law professionals active on Jewish legal topics such as civil rights, Category:American Jewish anti-racism activists or Category:Jewish American community activists may be better locations. Place Clichy (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy, I don't agree in part because being a civil rights lawyer does not mean being an activist. And I don't agree with they "practice the same law as other lawyers" arguement because you can say that about any profession and category.
    I'm very much in favor of keeping since there is precedence for dividing lawyers by ethnicity (non-American AND American). Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American inventors

Nominator's rationale: non-defining intersection per WP:EGRS Mason (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nom. I would add Category:African-American inventors and Category:Alaska Native inventors and scientists too. Don't see the point of the Category:American inventors being divided by ethnicity. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I think that this category should be broadened to just Category:Jewish inventors. (Effectively, my rule of thumb for nominating was whether there was a parent Jewish OCCUPATION category that wasn't diffused by nationality.) Mason (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photo archives

Nominator's rationale: From what I gather, "photo archive" is used to refer to two mostly distinct (though sometimes overlapping) concepts: (A) archives of photographs maintained for historical preservation/research purposes by GLAM institutions, and (B) archives of images made available for licensing by stock photography agencies. Most of the articles in the category and subcats appear to be of the type (A), though there are several of (B) mixed in. It would be preferable to rename the category to make the scope clearer, but I'm not sure on the name. The photo archive page was previously a jumbled mess that I attempted cleaning up just now, so it's a poor guide. Paul_012 (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it matter? This is Wikipedia, not Commons, so the content here is a set of encyclopedia articles describing individual archives, not content collections from those archives (which would have different licensing status). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because categories are supposed to serve as a navigational aid by grouping topics according to their defining characteristics, not just what people may call them, especially if the term is ambiguous. (A) and (B) are different concepts, so they need to be dismabiguated, not jumbled together. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then oppose, because they're both photo archives. Their licensing model isn't any sufficient reason to split them. Nor are these two groups clearly disjoint: historical photographs by GLAM institutions are increasingly offered for commercial sale (including many that are PD). Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking less in terms of licensing models than their main purpose and target group (one mainly serving researchers and public education; the other serving publishers and content users). But yes, there's overlap. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main distinction that I notice when scrolling through the articles is between photo archives (a minority of articles) versus institutes which among many other things also have photo collections (the majority of articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's a regular feature of our categorisation. Many of our entries for 'museums' will also be 'art galleries', but not all of them. Yet this doesn't mean that we have to break a simple categorisation as museums, by moving some out arbitrarily to 'museums with art galleries'. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, on the asis that photo archives are photo archives, whether they hold an electronic archive, a physical archive, or both. Sionk (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I do notr see the point in splitting, which seems to be what the nom wants. The content includes institutions whose collections are not entirely of photos, but does that matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Photographic collections and books

Nominator's rationale: Collections and books are rather different things, so I'm not sure why the category was created covering both. There's already Category:Books of photographs, so the category members that are books should probably be split and merged there. I'm not sure if Category:Photographic collections would be a clear title. I think museum and gallery collections is the intended meaning? Does anyone have a better alternative title? Paul_012 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, it is currently a confusing category title that could do with being renamed/recategorised. Sionk (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People in Sámi history

Nominator's rationale: delete, all people have lived in history at some point of time, this is not a defining characteristic. A merge is not needed, the articles are already in more appropriate Sámi subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell this category was supposed to be about famous Sámi people in history, but if someone has managed to be added to Wikipedia, I think that is enough to say that they were famous Sámi people, so I agree that this category should be ditched. - Yupik (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until the 20th-century, the Sami people were not treated equally with Norwegians, Swedes and Finns in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They did not always regard themselwes to be the subjects of these countries, but maintained their own separate culture and history. If this category is deleted, it would make it very hard to find Sami people of history, since they have no other such category. One would have to go through each individual article one by one, to find Sami people active prior to the 20th-century. There are no century-category of Sami people before the 20th-century. You could argue that centiry categories should be created instead of having this big category, but the problem is that the articles would, I believe, be to few to justify creating century categories before the 20th-century. Nevertheless, it is relevant to be able to find Sami people from history, particularly since their history was indeed separate from the history of other people of these realms. In the same fashion as, for example, "Category:19th-century Native Americans" have their own category. The Sami should not be treated differently.--Aciram (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then by all means create 19th-century and 18th-century categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aciram for bringing up this valid point! Based on your argument, I have changed my mind to oppose this category being deleted. - Yupik (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not enough with creating century categories. Why? I mention it above: some of those categories would simply be too small, and yet there are still Sami people who played in important part in Sami history which we would not be able to find if this category is deleted.--Aciram (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will you create the categories Category:14th-century Sámi people and Category:14th-century Sámi people just for Margareta (missionary), or will she dissapear in the sense that she will be very hard to find for people looking for notable people from Sami history? --Aciram (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is another article about a 14th-century Sámi I will. In the current situation there is not much use of a category because there is no other article to navigate to when you are in Margareta (missionary). Note that categories are meant to navigate between related articles. If you are interested in a complete list, List of Sámi people and List of Sámi women do a much better job. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no point in time where history stops and the present starts. Timeless categories such as Category:Sámi people and children categories by occupation, geography or group can have people from the past. Living people were also placed in this category (example). The argument that "If this category is deleted, it would make it very hard to find Sami people of history, since they have no other such category" is a cyclic argument, it does not demonstrate that there is such a concept as Sami people of history. A list article may be more efficient to underline the importance of some individual figures in Sámi history.Place Clichy (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The Sami have been nomads, and to some extent still are, wandering between Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. They thus do not fit easily into national categories. The question is how the parent container for them should be named. 17th 18th and 19th century categories already exist, into which the articles ought to be dispersed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sámi peoples

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, it is not a set category of peoples, but it is a topic category. After the rename, Category:Sámi peoples can possibly be re-created for articles like Inari Sámi people. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This category is connected on multiple language Wikipedia versions to categories that are specifically about Sámi peoples and the Wikidata item is connected many times over to articles about Sámi peoples. Renaming it will create an utter mess everywhere else besides the English Wikipedia. Create a new category called Category:Sámi, move what needs to go there from this category, and leave this one be. - Yupik (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Marcocapelle and Yupik: I would in principle support splitting content between Category:Sámi as a parent topic category and Category:Sámi peoples for individual groups such as Inari Sámi people, but in practice I don't find any other such article. Other articles such as Lule Sámi or Northern Sámi are about the languages, and dedicated categories such as Category:Lule Sámi people are for individual people, not the peoples as ethnic groups, and are already parented to Category:Sámi people and the four national Sámi in <country> categories. Place Clichy (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Skolts, Sámi Americans, Forest Sami are some more, and if someone gets around to translating them, there are articles for the rest on fiwiki, nowiki, etc. I think the categories should also make a clearer difference between when they are for people and when they are for languages, with an overarching category for the entire people and their culture. So Category:Lule Sámi, with subcats Category:Lule Sámi language, Category:Lule Sámi people, Category:Lule Sámi history, etc. And the same for each group. IMO the Category:Sámi peoples should be named Category:Sámi people if it is going to be a category for individual people; in the plural, it sounds like it is referring to groups of Sámi people. But if we decide to do that, I ask that you leave it up to people who know these topics thoroughly and can fix the categorization on Wikidata and other language Wikipedias and do not just randomly create, merge, rename, and delete categories. There is already precedent with the Category:Sápmi and its titular article for this particular reason. - Yupik (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Sámi people is already the category for individual people. Place Clichy (talk) 04:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True, not sure how I misread what you had written. Thanks! - Yupik (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Magical girl characters in anime and manga

Nominator's rationale: Case of clear WP:OVERLAPCAT given that being a "magical girl" generally implies anime or manga origin. If anything, the ones in the parent category should probably be removed as miscategorized. Simply being a woman who uses magical powers does not imply being part of the magical girl genre. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 12:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television shows set in Wales by city

Nominator's rationale: There's only likely ever to be one category in this category (Wales' other major cities, Swansea and Newport are not centres of TV production to my knowledge) therefore this is an unnecessary category step. I suggest Category:Television shows set in Cardiff‎ is upmerged to the parent categories. Sionk (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then the question is (and I do not know the answer) whether a Swansea category and a Wrexham category could be decently populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, my point exactly, I can see only 2 series filmed in Swansea, which wouldn't be enough to justify a category Sionk (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it would allow placing of these articles in an established tree: Category:Culture in Swansea, etc. --woodensuperman 08:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are already in established category trees. There's nothing to stop those two Swansea TV series being put in Category:Culture in Swansea anyway. SMALLCAT is designed to prevent categories containing only one or two items (which would make them difficult to find).Sionk (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply any more. It has been deprecated. --woodensuperman 13:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I meant to say "Overcategorization guidance", per my opening remarks. Sionk (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 12:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is pointless. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parents per nom. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to eliminate an unnecessary layer. This should probably also be done to the Scottish and Northern Irish siblings (2 items each). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by gender

  • Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: There are only a limited number of gender identities, so we don't need any category levels by gender. In most of the non-LGBT-related categories with more than 2 pages, the non-binary identities are already in the corresponding non-binary subcategory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Per WP:NARROWCAT besides Category:People by gender, which seems like it is fine. Sorting by this is not helpful as the amount of categories that can fit are heavily limited. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why would we put non-binary people in the gender in nation category? We don't do that for women or men, at least not directly. This feels like we're falling into Wikipedia:EGRS territory. Mason (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gender in <nation> usually has child categories for at least Men in <nation> and Women in <nation>. 'Non-binary' relates very much to gender. Place Clichy (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in principle, per nom, except the top category seems useful enough to keep and parent Category:People seems a too broad merge target. Admittedly I have not checked the nomination in detail. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I most particularly support merging the "by gender identity" categories because of the content of these. While Transgender is clearly an LGBT identity it is less clearly a gender identity, because you have transgender men (whose gender identity is man) and transgender women (whose gender identity is woman). Marcocapelle (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object in the cases of wrestlers and deities. It do not think female wrestlers usually compete against men. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: the intention is not to merge men and women together, the intention is to remove an intermediatr container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:24, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Television series by JTBC Studios

Nominator's rationale: Per C2D ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 08:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 21:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Film and television production company categories are never renamed. A show produced by company X was never produced by company B. That is just anachronistic and incorrect. What we do when a company is renamed, is make that the parent company of the former. Gonnym (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonnym can you provide a wikilink that supports your first sentence? ♒️ 98TIGERIUS 🐯 19:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I find a link for something that doesn't happen? Well, you can look for the 20th centuary fox category rename one. Gonnym (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-European history

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content (it is about the spread of the language family) and re-parent to Category:Indo-European languages. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seeing how the category is populated now, it appears to mix two different things: a) articles that discuss the historical development of Indo-European languages (which is a good match for the proposed target) and b) articles that relate to the pre-historical geographical migrations of speakers of early Indo-European languages (which would be better assigned to a new cat Category:Indo-European migrations). –Austronesier (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, with this limited amount of articles a split is not the most desirable option. Besides the migration is discussed in order to explain the spread of the language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Still the entire category lumps together two kinds of articles that are entirely unrelated to each other except for falling under the parent category Category:Indo-European languages. Have a look especially at Category:Indo-European language histories. These articles are about linguistic substance, i.e. how the phonology, grammar etc. of Indo-European languages have evolved from earlier attested or reconstructed stages. These "hard-core" linguistic topics are very remote from those that discuss the (pre-historical) spatial movements of peoples assumed to have spoken early Indo-European languages based on interdisciplinary interpretations of linguistic, archeaological and archaeogenetic data. –Austronesier (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 00:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The articles are not entirely about linguistics. The category is only sparsely populated and splitting will leave two SMALL CATS, which someone will misguidedly want to delete. I agree it is not a well bounded category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sexuality and age in fiction

Nominator's rationale: The category is proposed for renaming to match Category:Fiction about medicine and health and various precedents; I'm not handling this one through WP:CFDS as the resulting title is a bit odd. This is located within Category:Sexuality and age. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: comments on both the rename and the proposal on containerization would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 01:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – There are many other categories that use the format "X in fiction", for example many of the subcats in the given example Category:Fiction about medicine and health. The current naming format also suits articles that discuss the use of those themes in fiction and not just instances of works using those themes. I think it just sounds less clunky too. MClay1 (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support containerize and rename per Marcocapelle. I don't understand MClay1's opposition to the rename given that the goal is to ensure that the content is defining. I don't know of any examples of articles that discuss those themes, and think that they'd fit just as well in the category as renamed. Mason (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women shooting survivors

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this intersection between crime victim survivor and gender is a meaningful intersection per WP:OCEGRS Mason (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Women Lynching Victims Category/Neutral on Other The Lynching in the United States describes a very racial and gendered cultural context for the crimes. (Note that the article is ghastly before you click on that link.) Based on that, women are enough of an exception that it's likely defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge Category:Women shooting survivors, - manually because some articles are already in a nationality subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep women lynching victims, Neutral on other category. The reality and image of lynching in the US is gendered and racialized, centering on Black men. A lot of people don't even realize Black women and girls were victims. A quick Google search comes up with results discussing Black women's experience of lynching, so it is a notable intersection. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep categories, or rename by replacing "women" with "female". Female is an adjective, women is a noun. Plus "female" is inclusive of both girls and women. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional principalities

Nominator's rationale: Falls under WP:NARROWCAT as an unnecessarily precise category. With only 3 non-redirect members after 13 years as a category I do not think it needs to be this specific. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better merge to Category:Fictional countries. Goustien (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way would work, so I am not opposed to that either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People seem to support mostly Category:Fictional countries, but Category:Fictional kingdoms is more specific without losing accuracy. I can live if the former is chosen over the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately it could become fictional monarchies, combining fictional empires, kingdoms and principalities. But that is probably for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century assassinated Asian politicians

Nominator's rationale: I think we should just upmerge this category as there are only three categories total that contain nationality specific 20th-century assassinated politicians‎. Mason (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I had forgotten about this project I started. My plan was to populate it directly with politicians not with nationalities, as opposed to Category:Assassinated politicians in Asia that is populated with subcategories of nationalities due to its extent. According to the PetScan analysis, the nominated category has potentially more than 300 entries. Sincerely,
Thinker78 (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Edited 23:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would definitely recommend populating nationality categories (for the better populated countries only) rather than populating continent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur. Nationality is helpful, much more so that continents. Mason (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was doing that (20th-century assassinated Indian politicians, and Chinese) but there are only few of them. I think categorizing by continent is standard practice (cities in Asia, history of Asia, Asian cuisine, etc.). Given the large amount of individual pages in Category:Assassinated politicians in Asia, I think it would be also helpful to diffuse by intersection of at least 20t century assassinated politicians and assassinated politicians in Asia, although other diffusion schemes may be helpful as well. Btw, there is the Category:20th century in Asia. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Assassinated politicians in Asia is pretty well diffused by nationalities. I don't see why we'd need to add an additional intersection by century with continent. I don't think that categorizing by continent before nationality is standard practice. I'm not sure your examples are super relevant because they don't include examples of people or death, which seem to be the key features here, rather than the continent. Mason (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, it's a lot of work. Although any "standard practice" starts one day with an initial practice that was not standard. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Some countries like China and Japan have ancient histories. Diffusion can help navigate among at least two centuries, even in countries that were created in the 20th century. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, even if it would be expanded with more nationalities it remains to be seen if we need continent categories on top. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to note that even though Thinker78 has added more Asian nationalities, I don't see the advantage of isolating them from the only other nationality category France. Mason (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. Why do you mention France? (Category:20th-century assassinated French politicians)? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it is a nationality category being treated differently from all the other nationality categories. Mason (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlastertalk 23:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge but not as nom. Category:Assassinated politicians in Asia would be a better target. The present target is diffused by decades, which means that the nom's result would be ugly. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So the problem is that Category:Assassinated politicians in Asia is supposed to be countries, rather than nationalities. So it would make an even bigger mess. The goal of the merge was to keep the nationalities in the 20th-century together, not further apart. Mason (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to tidy up the category by bundling all the decades together, 20th-century assassinated politicians by decade‎, which I think is helpful if we must keep all the categories diffused by decade, personally I'd prefer we diffuse by nationality rather than decade. Mason (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at the category I made, and I don't love it. I'm going to empty it and delete it. Mason (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University controversies

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Marcocapelle, what are the two articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Qwerfjkl: it's the two articles that are now left in the nominated category. By the way, I did not receive your ping, probably you can't relist and ping simultanously. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Galizien division

Nominator's rationale: WP:COMMONNAME: this is the most common short name for the division,[3][4] capitalized as a proper name. The short name is appropriate as this category includes members both while it was the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) (1943–45) and 1st Galicia Division of the Ukrainian National Army (1945).  —Michael Z. 15:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar results:
 —Michael Z. 16:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with spirit possession or body swapping abilities

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories coincide apart from Category:Fictional hypnotists and indoctrinators (which is not part of the nomination). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not against that either. I will tag the target too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging either category into Category:Fictional psychics. Mind control is a distinct type of (psychic) power, it's not the exact same thing as telepathy, and it's certainly very different from telekinesis. AHI-3000 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A hypnotist is quite something different, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When it comes down to it, hypnosis in fiction is just one of many types of mind control. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (response added after relisting) the difference between natural and supernatural forms of mind control seems too big to merge them together. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Archaeological museums in Kyiv

Nominator's rationale: Single-entry category for a narrow intersection of characteristics with no growth potential. No other museums in the national category are located in Kyiv, and no other museums in the Kyiv category are archaeological, so we don't need an archaeological+Kyiv intersection for just one museum. This would be fine if there were several archaeological museums in Kyiv, but if there's just one then the parent categories that already existed are sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paintings of black people

Nominator's rationale: rename and purge, "black" is too subjective a skin color (I learned that people of Indian descent may be included in "Black British") and likely to lead to original research. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, there are plenty of paintings of black models in Western Europe, such as France or the Netherlands. I doubt that these people identify as African, just as French and Dutch. Ymblanter (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably there must be paintings of black people that are not from African countries. It doesn't make sense to me to have, say, an article on a painting of Barack Obama in the Paintings of African people cat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Black" is also specifically already used to identify many of the paintings affected, sometimes without any further identification of the subjects' ethnicity. Ex. Boy and Dog in a Johnnypump, Black Woman with Peonies, Portrait of a Black Man with a Sword, or the "Black is Beautiful" exhibit that popularized Wounded KNIL Soldier. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename per above, oppose purge per WP:BLUE. Orchastrattor (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think "Murals of" makes more sense though, "Murals with" would also make more sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Paintings" got speedy renamed from 'about' to 'of' so yes but they just forgot about the subcats. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename In general, African diaspora can be subsorted from African people if necessary. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page was created as part of a larger diffusion on Category:Black people in art, children should not be renamed without renaming the entire tree. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but two caveots. 1) I think an alternative name like people of African descent would require less purging; 2. Orchastrattor points out: we need to address the entire category tree. Mason (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How common is WP:SKYISBLUE in cat discussions? Populating "[subject] in [medium]" cats based on superficially obvious elements seems decently common already, not every painting is going to have reputable sources identifying every minute detail with no further analysis. Orchastrattor (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I asked User:Orchastrattor to revert the closing of this discussion, as being involved, not following the steps at WP:CfDClosings and being too early for a no consensus after just 7 days. If they don't self-revert, I or another editor will request to revert the closure e.g. at WP:AN/I. I am fine with the removal of this comment if the closing is removed. Place Clichy (talk) 09:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, but can someone please move "Murals about black people" to "Murals of black people" per parent-cats? That should be uncontroversial. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set in computers

Nominator's rationale: Should probably become a subcategory of Category:Virtual reality works, not Category:Computing. "In computers" can be vague, and refer to physically being inside a computer of some kind. This would, of course, imply the subcategories also get renamed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The new name better fits the contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support These seem to be works about virtual realities. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish physicians by specialty

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity/religion and medical specialization. per WP:EGRS/I Mason (talk) 15:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, trivial intersections. Jewish ears and larynges are no different than Goy ones. Place Clichy (talk) 23:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between occupation and manner of death. If kept, should be renamed Murdered businesspeople. Mason (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All members are likely already in another subcategory. Most were murdered for reasons unrelated to their jobs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Subordinators by language

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as this entire category tree is a mess. Mason (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one page in here Mason (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it has two. Brett (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great! But that doesn't fix the other problem that the parent category only has this category in it. Mason (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now it too has two. Brett (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, two redundant category layers on top of each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has obvious potential to grow. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Piotrus says. -- Hoary (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --Brett (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Creating categories with single items does not solve the problem. @Brett why are you making categories with singles page in them? like, Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators. This entire category scheme is a mess. Can someone (@Piotrus or @Hoary) please explain what the growth potential is? Mason (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many other languages, thus the potential for Romanian interrogative subordinators, Ojibwa interrogative subordinators, etc. Brett (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But they don't exist right now. Potential for growth is not a metric used for evaluating categories (small cat no longer exists as a policy). Mason (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mason, your nomination read(s): Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one page in here. Seems pretty reasonable. But by the time I noticed the existence of this little discussion, the category already had two pages. So your nomination, however reasonable and constructive, seemed obsolete when I first read it. Now you're asking about the creation of single-item categories. The question's reasonable enough, and arguably Brett was a naughty fellow for perpetrating just such a category. (Without thinking too deeply about the matter, I have a mixed opinion.) But I wonder why you're bringing up the matter here and now. If what you're now proposing is (i) that the entire category scheme is a mess plus (ii) some better alternative, then please make this explicit. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining your reasoning, that's helpful. I was asking because I didn't understand how potential for growth was related to the fact that this category is unhelpful for navigation. I think that both Category:Interrogative subordinators and Category:Declarative subordinators, should be deleted and that Category:Subordinators by language should be merged into the parent. I've updated the nomination Mason (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brett@Marcocapelle@Piotrus, I've updated the nomination per @Hoary's request. Mason (talk) 23:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing about the directory tree that clearly is not satisfactory as it stands is that Category:Declarative subordinators currently has but one member, That. The band-aid/elastoplast solution would be to hurriedly add the stub for a second. I'm not offering to do this -- not just because I loathe stubs, but because the article That, for starters, currently lacks a single mention of "subordinator" (even though, yes, it is a prototypical subordinator, for which please see The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, passim). If the article were decent, its terminology could easily be updated. However, its section "Modern usage" is worthless. For me, fixing misinformation is more pressing than adding more information (let alone worrying about categorization). (Oh, and also, that "is not a thing": there are two ⟨that⟩ /ˈðæt/ homonyms, as far apart from each other as Galicia is from Galicia.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also support deletion of the two added categories, they are currently not helpful for navigation either. Possibly merge them to Category:English grammar. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:City Councils in Atlantic County

Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, recently created just to overcategorize one redirect. We don't really have a ton of articles about city councils in the United States -- we obviously have some for relatively major cities, but a lot of smaller cities don't have articles about their city councils at all, with the result that the category tree for them is relatively small: just 17 states actually have "[State] city councils" categories, none of which are subdivided by individual county at all (and none of which are large enough to even need that, because California is the only state in the entire country whose category has more than five articles in it) -- the other 33 states either have no cities whose city councils have their own separate articles at all, or have only one or two that have been left in the Category:City councils in the United States parent instead of being subbed out for state.
New Jersey, for the record, is one of the ones that doesn't have a state-level category at all, and the only other place in New Jersey with an article in the US-level category is Newark. So no prejudice against the creation of Category:New Jersey city councils, if desired, but there's no need to sift them all the way down to the individual county here. There's just no navigational benefit in obsessively filtering everything down into narrow one-entry microcategories. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sinhala-language culture

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Unhelpful for navigation to only have one category in here Mason (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reconstructionist Jews by nationality

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Not helpful for navigation to only have two categories in here Mason (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths in the Kingdom of Bavaria

Nominator's rationale: small underpopulated cat where regime isn't defining Mason (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1st, deaths by country should be a container category by cause of death. Country of death in itself is redundant, as it largely overlaps with nationality.
Oppose 2nd, the two suicides happened before the German Empire was established. Possibly merge it to Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Darr dies in Augsburg. Heinrich Julius Alexander von Kalb shot himself "near Munich". Augsburg and Munich are in Germany. So Category:Suicides in Germany is perfectly fine (see also reasoning above). Place Clichy (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Edward-Woodrow (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Bavaria was a state of the Holy Roman Empire before there was a German Empire. Augsburg was (I think) a free city. As long as we are allowed to use Germany to cover HRE and its successors Place Clichy's suggestion is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papua New Guinea national football team matches

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no chance of being increased Joseph2302 (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Standard for every national team's significant matches to have their own category. I would prefer changing the category's name to Papua New Guinea national soccer team matches per its main category. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britsh sportspeople by descent

more sibling categories
Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between occupation and place of birth or ancestors' nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a much larger tree (Category:Sportspeople by country of descent), and it isn't trivial because country of descent can allow people to compete for other countries, e.g. Grandfather rule Mason (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and WP:EGRS/I. There are some specific intersections of sports and national origin, e.g. the contribution of Polish immigrant mine workers to early and mid 20th-century football teams in Northern France is much documented. However, such an intersection is not notable by default. A specific case must be made for each intersection. Sportspeople who compete for several national teams deserve to be categorized in each national sportspeople category, not an intersection of both. Place Clichy (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- many of these appear to be well populated, particularly English subcats of British ones. If there are small categories, they would be better merged to Africa; West Indies; etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture

Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: These current names are unnecessarily long, let's make them shorter and more concise. AHI-3000 (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this a generalization and, hence, equivalent to "undead"? If so, it could be merged to Category:Undead in popular culture. Also, I am puzzled by the separate fictional subcategory, isn't it all fictional? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, Category:Zombies and revenants in popular culture is already a subcategory of Category:Undead in popular culture. Second, Category:Fictional zombies and revenants is about fictional characters who happen to be zombies. AHI-3000 (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, Jiangshi is unrelated to the Haitian-originated zombie tradition, but still belongs to undead. Of course you may argue that subCategory:Jiangshi fiction should be re-parented to Category:Undead in popular culture and otherwise the rename may go ahead as nominated. But maybe there is more non-zombie content in here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Jiangshi are commonly identified as vampires and sometimes zombies, hence why it's under both categories. Also most fictional zombies in modern pop culture have absolutely nothing to do with Haitian Vodou mythology anyways, it's basically just a general term for "undead reanimated corpse that isn't a mummy or vampire". AHI-3000 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is exactly my point, much of this is about undead in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Look, this nomination is very simply about renaming these zombie categories to shorter titles that remove the unnecessary "and revenants" part. This isn't about the definition of zombies vs undead in general. I don't know why you're arguing about removing references to zombies altogether, they are undeniably a distinct category of undead monsters. Nobody would be suggesting to merge Category:Zombies into Category:Undead. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example is Jerusalem's Lot in the Short stories subcat, it is about Nosferatu, not zombies but apparently another class of undead. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected that and moved it to the appropriate category about vampire short stories. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative nomination
Propose merging/renaming:
I strongly oppose this alternate nomination. Zombies have their own tropes in fiction that are very distinct from the likes of ghosts and vampires. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom There is clearly specific zombie media, enough to merit a popular culture category for zombies. Anything not zombie-related should be upmerged to Category:Undead in popular culture, or its subcategories. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Wait, you are supporting my original renaming proposal instead of Marco's alternate proposal, correct? AHI-3000 (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am, there does not seem to be a need to mix up two types of undead in this category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-free animated images

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to category that is populated by {{Non-free video sample}}. Contents are a gameplay animation (File:Door door ani.gif), four samples from video works, and a file that is at FfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fair use media with non-commercial licenses

Nominator's rationale: There is a huge mess with a duplicative tree for Category:Fair use images; non-free files can be used at Wikipedia only under a fair use claim. The new name would match subcategory Category:Non-free media with non-commercial and no derivative works licenses. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-racism in the Arab world

Nominator's rationale: delete, the large amount of content is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not about anti-racism broadly, not about the Arab world per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The objection that there isn't enough content or that too much is Palestinian is specious. The lack of content is a suggestion that the categories should be added to. Racism in the Arab world and opposition to it is notable. The lack of attention to Arab anti-racist movements is a reflection of Wikipedia's Eurocentrism, anti-Arabism, and erasure of Black Arabs and other racialized Arabs. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion above is #Category:Arab anti-racism activists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Marcocapelle and my reasoning at #Category:Arab anti-racism activists. The trouble with this category name is that it confuses a geographic area (the "Arab world", in which not all inhabitants self-identify as Arabs) and an ethnicity. That's a problem when the topic is anti-racism. It is safer, more convenient and in fact more precise to consider these topics by country and containerize categories through pre-existing regional category schemes such as Middle East. Also, this would have the benefit of avoiding unsolvable battles about e.g. whether Israel is in the Arab world. Place Clichy (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arab anti-racism activists

Nominator's rationale: delete, only contains one article (which does not mention anti-racism activism) and one subcategory (which is already in Category:Middle Eastern anti-racism activists). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The objection that there isn't enough content is specious. The lack of content is a suggestion that the categories should be added to. Racism in the Arab world and opposition to it is notable. The lack of attention to Arab anti-racist movements is a reflection of Wikipedia's Eurocentrism, anti-Arabism, and erasure of Black Arabs and other racialized Arabs. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added mention of Ksiksi's anti-racist activism and her role in passing pioneering anti-racism legislation in Tunisia. Why an article on Tunisia's first Black MP didn't already mention it, I don't know. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile someone purged the one article, which makes it even less necessary to keep the category. Surely en.wp is biased in coverage, but you can't blame categories for it. Categories merely follow what happens in article space. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I created categories for Tunisian anti-racism and anti-racists. There should be more content about Arab anti-racism and there are the sources to do it. I don't think the fact that these categories are now currently parent categories is a good reason to eliminate them. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incorrect juxtapostion of nationality and ethnicity; members of the subcategories currently here (which are based on nationality and type of activism) are not necessarily Arabs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. That notion would only be useful if there was a specific Arab anti-racism. I don't think there is such a thing, it's just anti-racism. In fact the suggestion that there would be a specific Arab anti-racism is racist in itself. Also, the stupidity of adding Category:Moroccan anti-racism activists and Category:Tunisian anti-racism activists to the Arab anti-racist category is that, in fact, they could or should include Berbers and members of other minorities fighting against discrimination from the Arab majority in these countries. So let's better stick to geography-based container categories. Place Clichy (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Han Chinese people

Nominator's rationale: delete, if populated it would have more than 90% overlap with Category:Chinese people. Fortunately it has not been substantially populated yet. Note that subCategory:Subgroups of the Han Chinese is already directly under Category:Han Chinese as well, so there is no need to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we should distinguish between Chinese nationals and ethnic Chinese and Chinese speakers. There are many ethnic Chinese not in China with articles, and many non-Han in China with articles. "Chinese people" is a category that is ambiguously named, it should state it is for Chinese nationals, instead of "Chinese people", which can refer to those of Han ethnicity, Han ancestry, Sinophones, writers of Chinese languages, genetic groupings, etc. (Same problem with "French people", "German people", etc, where the same term refers to languages, nationals, ethnicities) -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless specified otherwise we mean people who have been living in China (or France or Germany for that matter) beyond being an expatriate. Distinguishing between Chinese nationals and ethnic (Han?) Chinese and Chinese speakers leads to a ridiculous amount of overlap. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The distinction isn't helpful. Mason (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spies by nationality

Nominator's rationale: 寒吉 (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while you could well argue that spies ought to be categorized by country that they are spying for, that is currently not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we could just create Category:Spies by country and fill it up with subcategories about "Spies for X country". AHI-3000 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:35, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create a new tree as proposed by AHI-3000. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional executions by method

Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT: Method of execution is arbitrary in fiction and may include methods that do not exist in real life, such as by black hole. Category:Fictional executed characters is fairly small, too. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all proposals. And why not nominate Category:Fictional executed people by crime as well? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered that, since I wasn't as sure. Did you mean Category:Fictional executed people by crime? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"may include methods that do not exist in real life": categories about fictional events are not prohibited. Apokrif (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; what I should have said is that the method of execution is usually plot-irrelevant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but the merge to Category:Hanging in fiction, which is meant for fictional works, not characters. I support this per nom as the low-hanging fruit solution, although I have been mulling over whether Category:Fictional dead characters or any of its subcategories can even be defining. After all, a defining trait is how the character is known while they are active in the plot. When a character is dead, it turns into an element of the story itself. Besides undead and ghosts, a dead character can't interact with others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Category:Hanging in fiction, which is meant for fictional works, not characters": the category name does not say so. Apokrif (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the name goes against WP:NONDEF. If it was renamed to the correct name of Category:Fiction about hangings, then it would definitely encompass only works. Though arguably it would be better off at Category:Fiction about capital punishment as it's currently a fairly specific category, perhaps too specific. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I still oppose any deletion or merging of any nominated categories. I do not support this weird obsession with destroying categories just because they're too small. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cyber Security by country

Nominator's rationale: To match the parent (the three children of this one should have the same change) Fram (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works set on the moon

Nominator's rationale: Duplicative in scope, contains only subcategories by medium. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per zxcvbnm and agree, but definitely uppercase Moon per proper name and Wikipedia style. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_19#Category:Works_by_setting will affect this CfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works set in outer space

Nominator's rationale: Merge small categories without prejudice to re-creating if more members are found. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Massacres committed by anarchists

Nominator's rationale: I'm not convinced that this intersection is defining/ok. I don't see any other categories like this, where the murder is defined by the political orientation of the killer. All the other examples in that category is based on specific organzations. Mason (talk) 06:28, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rename to Category:Anarchist terrorism. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your rename doesn't really address the core issue of violence by political orientation. Are there other categories like the one you've proposed? Mason (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must not be aware of Category:Terrorism by political orientation. Category:Left-wing terrorism would certainly be used as a supercategory for Category:Anarchist terrorism.
AHI-3000 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all anarchists are left wing though. (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most anarchists are leftist. Especially in the context of militant anarchism. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not merged then the name Category:Anarchist terrorism covers the content of the category better. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merged, also merge to Category:Terrorism by political orientation. I wasn't aware of this category either. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified the anarchism noticeboard, which wasn't tagged. czar 13:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with the nom. This is a problem with the entire Category:Terrorism by political orientation category unless the events can be made to shown that political orientation was a "defining" motivation in the event (and not just a trait of the actor). See {{Terrorism category definition}}. The articles in this category, if need be, are already covered in other subcategories related to the history of anarchism. czar 13:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone else find it odd that many articles in this list are about bombings? I wouldn't expect bombings to be described as massacres. You can massacre people with guns or swords or so on, but if you mass-kill people with a bomb, that's just... a bombing. It's not completely impossible (eg I can find hits for "Air India massacre" and "Lockerbie massacre" on google), but it's certainly not common, and it seems to me that the uses I turned up weren't examples of defining these bombings as massacres so much as a rhetorical twist to emphasize the horror for readers. Our own article on massacres appears to agree with me. -- asilvering (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the category was created in good faith, but to be honest, only one of the events listed really meets the classical definition of a massacre, that being the Eichenfeld massacre. The others are largely bombings, one case of a mass execution of prisoners of war and one is a mass murderer. These were all certainly awful, but don't qualify as "massacres" (i.e. mass killings of civilians by an armed group) in the same way Eichenfeld clearly does. I'd consider keeping this category if more clear-cut examples can be presented that justifies the category's existence. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that meanwhile Category:Anarchist terrorism has been created as a duplicate of the nominated category. Presumably, if there is consensus to delete the nominated category, its duplicate should be deleted too. And if kept they should be merged back. This is really a procedural mess. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Anarchist terrorism should be covered in a separate discussion. The point remains that the topics in this category are already covered under child categories of the History of anarchism category so there is no need for merger. czar 04:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus to delete or merge Category:Massacres committed by anarchists, but not for Category:Anarchist terrorism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:Anarchist terrorism should be considered separately. It shouldn't have been bundled with this nom as there is agreement that it is not a "duplicate" of the nominated category. czar 15:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths by firearm in New York City

Nominator's rationale: Per trivial cat, we don't categorize deaths by place; Also per WP:OCLOCATION. In the usa, category is as specific as the state because the categories are very large. The primary category is cause of death (that is then diffused by country). Mason (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Deaths by firearm in New York City. We allow categorizations of certain types of deaths by place, and while NYC is big enough to justify its own subcategory within New York state, we don't need to diffuse any further. (There are 226 articles in the NYC tree; for comprison, Category:Deaths by firearm in Texas contains 227 articles, if we exclude everything from Category:Assassination of John F. Kennedy.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NYC may be big, but I don't think that alone is reason to diffuse to city. Mason (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom (or else merge per LaundryPizza03). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "we don't need to diffuse any further" According to whom and for what reason? Nearly all categories need further subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Manhattan (which I checked) is quite large enough to keep. I expect the rest are too. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per @LaundryPizza03's suggestion. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suicides in New York City

Nominator's rationale: Per trivial cat, we don't categorize deaths by place; Also per WP:OCLOCATION. In the usa, category is as specific as the state because the categories are very large. The primary category is cause of death (that is then diffused by country). Mason (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to PetScan, there are 248 articles that are not in the 9/11-related subcategories. For comparison, there are 114 articles in the rest of the New York state tree. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why keep new york city? as opposed to the larger state like we do for other suicide categories. Mason (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Per trivial cat, we don't categorize deaths by place" Yet you suggesting merging to another category which does just that. And I do not see any reason to merge city-level categories to a category covering an entire U.S. State. Dimadick (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:33, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the two that I checked are well populated - well over 5 entries. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional self-sacrifices

Nominator's rationale: Real-life counterpart is Category:Martyrs. Contested WP:CFDS due to concerns that the martyr label is used mostly in a religious context, but that was contested as well due to concerns about definingness.
Copy of WP:CFDS discussion

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indo-Europeanists

Nominator's rationale: rename per article Indo-European studies. The term Indo-Europeanist is hardly ever used. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Indo-European studies scholars"? – Joe (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Incest in legend

Nominator's rationale: I don't think these are distinct enough Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do distinguish Category:Legends versus Category:Mythology though. The way I have always understood it, for what it is worth, is that mythology is related to religions (whether or not extinct), while legends are not. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case, rename to Category:Legendary victims of incest and Category:Mythological victims of incest per WP:COPSEP, or delete as not sufficiently defining. About the latter, note that we do not have a Category:Victims of incest either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle I agree. Incest is too vague. Earlier I categorized a man who arranged a marriage between his daughter and brother in the category but I don’t think that fits.
    i think victims of incest is too subjective too because we’d need a perpetrators category too, and particularly in mythology it’s rather common for examples where it isn’t even treated as a negative such as Izanagi and Izanagi or examples where it’s treated as a crime against nature but the power dynamic is glossed over or both people are portrayed as equal accomplices.
    Is incestor a word? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose use of the word "victim". What about Category:Mythology about incest, etc instead. Mason (talk) 14:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok fair, victims is not always the best word, but the category is still about mythological people and otherwise it would have been "myths about". On another note, what do you think of the alternative to delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmmmm, given that we don't have a incest category for people, it seem slike we should either delete both, or change the scope. Mason (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as we don't have a incest category for people. --Yorkporter (talk) 07:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kentucky women writers

Nominator's rationale: A combination of people which are present in subcategories of Category:American women writers and Category:Writers from Kentucky. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesian-speaking people by occupation

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indonesian-language culture

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. This category doesn't help navigation with only one category in it. Mason (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Male veterinarians

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between gender and occupation Mason (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian people by first language

Nominator's rationale: Neither child category indicates that their first language was that specific language Mason (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Finnish people by first language

Nominator's rationale: Neither of the child categories indicate that the speakers first spoke Russian or Swedish. Mason (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:7th-century Arabian Jews

Nominator's rationale: I don't think that this specific ethnic group needs to be diffused by century Mason (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, these are Jews who are almost exclusively mentioned in the Quran. This is a distinct group of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, I think the category should be renamed to capture that defining feature. Mason (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles using Template:Background color with invalid color combination

Nominator's rationale: Also populated with templates. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 01:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:20th-century executions of Jewish people

Nominator's rationale: upmerge as this category doesn't help navigation Mason (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sole subcategory is already in Category:People executed by Nazi Germany. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Massachusetts Bay

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT. It is by no means useful to have navigation for pre-statehood and post-statehood Massachusetts be separated solely due to a difference in name. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Province of Massachusetts Bay is not the same entity as Massachusetts (nor are they same as Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony, or Province of Maine). Each entity as it's own history and combining them into one category is anachronistic and simply creates a mess. They also do not overlap as each entity has its own years and area, so other than sharing a somewhat similar name, how do they overlap? Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, all changes to the categories should be restored to the status quo while this CfD is ongoing. Gonnym (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_December_20&oldid=1191777609"